Archive

New submitter GavrocheLeGnou writes “The french ISP ‘Free.fr’ is now blocking ads from Adsense and other providers by default for all its subscribers. The option can be turned off globally, but there’s no whitelist (Google translation of French original). From the article: ‘Because the service doesn’t offer a whitelist (contrary to Adblock, a service I’ve used for years), this means that it is an all or nothing choice, activated by default to block everything. And since it is not only internet, but TV and phone lines running through the FreeBox, it’s possible that, if left unchecked, Free could beginning blocking TV ads, or phone calls from known spam hotlines. While this seems like a potentially beneficial service, there’s no doubt that it’s biting at the heels of several sectors who rely on advertisement to make money, let alone the advertisers themselves who pay to reach an audience, and are blocked at the door.’”

alexander_686 writes “Bloomberg is running a series of articles from Susan Crawford about the stagnation of internet access in the U.S., and why consumers in America pay more for slower service. Quoting: ‘The two kinds of Internet-access carriers, wired and wireless, have found they can operate without competing with each other. The cable industry and AT&T-Verizon have divided up the world much as Comcast and Time Warner did; only instead of, “You take Philadelphia, I’ll take Minneapolis,” it’s, “You take wired, I’ll take wireless.” At the end of 2011, the two industries even agreed to market each other’s services.’ I am a free market type of guy. I do recognize the abuse that can come from natural monopolies that utilities tend to have, but I have never considered this type of collusion before. To fix the situation, Crawford recommends that the U.S. ‘move to a utility model, based on the assumption that all Americans require fiber-optic Internet access at reasonable prices.’”

Nerval’s Lobster writes “When AppData first posted a graph showing a 25 percent drop in Instagram’s daily active users, it sparked a flurry of discussion online—much of it focused on the recent controversy over the photo-sharing service’s Terms of Use. The New York Post, for example, blamed the dip on a ‘revolt’ among Instagram users incensed over changes in the Terms of Use, including new legalese that some interpreted as blanket permission for the service to start selling user photos to advertisers. But a new statement from AppData, which tracks app traffic, suggests there’s another cause behind the dip in daily active users: the season. ‘The decline in Facebook-connected daily active users began closer to Christmas, not immediately after the proposed policy changes,’ read a statement the firm sent to The Wall Street Journal. ‘The drop between Dec. 24 and 25 seems likely to be related to the holiday, during which time people are traveling and otherwise have different routines than usual.’” It’s also possible (likely, even) that there’s no loss of users at all. AppData only checks a subset of Instagram users, and the photo-sharing site itself has said the data represented there is not accurate. Another article points out that several other Facebook-related services showed significant drops, according to AppData, which could suggests a problem with the entire platform or with the data gathering methods.

New submitter Alex Belits writes “Users of the Instagram image sharing service owned by Facebook filed a class action against Facebook for the recent change in Terms of Service.” The changes that were supposed to take effect on January 16, 2013 declared for Facebook an unlimited right to use and license users’ photos, added an arbitration requirement for legal disputes, and more. Guess the lawyers involved here weren’t impressed enough by Facebook’s hasty back-pedaling on this front; the company did explicitly disclaim ownership interest in the uploaded photos after a wave of complaints, but left in place certain other clauses in the new terms.

An anonymous reader writes “I work for a European ISP, and lately we’re receiving quite a few complaints from customers about not being able to send emails because of UCEProtect’s listings. After checking with their site, we found out that our whole AS (!) was blacklisted. Their ‘immediate removal policy’ asks for money, around 90 euros Per IP for end users and 300 euros for ISPs, and their site has bold statements like ‘YOU ARE LOSING YOUR RIGHT TO EXPRESSDELIST YOUR IP IF YOU ARE STUPID AND CLAIMING THIS WOULD BE BLACKMAIL…’ Could this be considered extortion-blackmail ? Has anyone else on Slashdot dealt with this service before?”

Techmeology writes “Just days after the UK Pirate Party was forced to kill its proxy service Pirate Parties in Argentina and Luxembourg have created their own proxies. In a statement, the Pirate Party in Argentina said: ‘We wish the UK Pirate Party best of luck in their continued fight for free access to culture and knowledge. We have put up our own Pirate Bay proxy which is accessible from anywhere in the world, including the UK and other places where it has been censored.’”

If you use Chrome along with Google’s Sync, you may have noticed something strange Monday: normally stable Chrome crashing. An article at Wired (excerpt below) explains why: “Late Monday, Google engineer Tim Steele confirmed what developers had been suspecting. The crashes were affecting Chrome users who were using another Google web service known as Sync, and that Sync and other Google services — presumably Gmail too — were clobbered Monday when Google misconfigured its load-balancing servers. … Steele wrote in a developer discussion forum, a problem with Google’s Sync servers kicked off an error on the browser, which made Chrome abruptly shut down on the desktop. ‘It’s due to a backend service that sync servers depend on becoming overwhelmed, and sync servers responding to that by telling all clients to throttle all data types,’ Steele said. That ‘throttling’ messed up things in the browser, causing it to crash.”

ShipLives writes “Researchers have tested Google’s app verification service (included in Android 4.2 last month), and found that it performed very poorly at identifying malware in apps. Specifically, the app verification service identified only ~15% of known malware in testing — whereas existing third-party security apps identified between 51% and 100% of known malware in testing.”

Trailrunner7 writes “Malicious apps have emerged as perhaps the most serious threat to mobile devices at the moment, and the major players, such as Apple and Google, have tried several different methods of preventing them from getting into their app stores and into the hands of users. Now, Google is taking one more step with the launch of a new service called the Private Channel for Google Apps, which gives enterprises and other organizations the ability to create private app stores and control the apps their users can download. Private Channel is essentially a way for organizations to stand up their own miniature app stores inside of Google Play–the main app store for Android devices–and publish apps to it. That gives these organizations the ability to point their users directly to the apps they want users to download for their Android devices. The new service will include some of the security features built into Google Play, most notably the anti-malware system and the ability to authenticate users.”